4 ms·

I've never really understood the sentences following this quote. > '[…] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich

I've never really understood the sentences following this quote. > '[…] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' They were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Then who can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.' Why do the apostles seem to think that Jesus's words would make it difficult for anyone to be saved? Surely from what he's said it's obvious that poor people can be saved. And when Jesus says 'for God all things are possible', isn't he implying that some rich people might get into heaven? So why do people interpret the passage as Jesus saying this is impossible?

tines 3y ago
Because it was thought that being rich meant you were close to God. If the people they thought were closest to God could scarcely be saved, then how could anyone else be? So the thinking goes. It's an argument a fortiori. Of course Jesus' point was that the poor and sinners are much closer to the kingdom of God than the rich, hence their astonishment.
- 542458 3y ago
  Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This is illustrated in John 9, where the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man: His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is why Jesus going around healing the blind and lepers was significant and a bit shocking: those were supposed to be the bad people, and if their state was punishment for their evil why would you go and help them? But the gospel message is that we all do bad things, and judged on our own merits we all fall short of goodness. But there is grace, and by grace the bad things we do can be put away.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    > Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. This is one explanation for why the previous president had so much support among evangelicals: He's rich and so it must mean God likes him. This is also (as the article suggests) why there has been a long and concerted effort to suggest that Jesus wasn't suggesting something entirely impossible (like the debunked city gate explanation)
    - danans 3y ago
      > American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
        danans 3y ago
        > Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible. There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions. I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.
- jknoepfler 3y ago
  That isn't the natural reading of the passage. The listeners express surprise when Jesus says "rich folks won't enter the kingdom of God". They then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? Jesus then says "no mortal person," explaining that only God makes it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't say poor people. He says "nobody". The point is that there is no material means to enter heaven. Rich and poor are identical in this regard.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    Then why does he single out the rich folks? It would make more sense in your interpretation to not include the "rich" and imply that any man entering heaven was impossible.
    - teach 3y ago
      Because Jesus loved using parables, a specific type of joke with a setup and a reveal that contradicts the audience's expectations.
  - tines 3y ago
    > they then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? > Jesus then says "no mortal person," Except this isn't what Jesus says. He says "With man 'it' is impossible." Jesus' response doesn't even make grammatical sense as a reply to "who can be saved?" because it isn't a reply to that. The question "Who can be saved?" was posed among the listeners to themselves, not to Christ: > And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? Jesus' statement "with man it is impossible" is a continuation of the thought that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven (so hard that it requires a miracle above what's required for a normal person). It's impossible with men that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle, but with God, it's possible (and thus possible for a rich man to be saved, though not easy). It's not that there's anything good about poor people that gets them in; it's that rich people don't want in. Any interpretation that makes it as easy for rich people to enter as it is for poor people is missing the clear meaning of the words.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NobodyNada 3y ago
Let's look at the context before the quote too: Mark 10:17-27 (NLT) > As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" > "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'" > "Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young." > Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." > At this the man's face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. > Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!" This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" > The disciples were astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" they asked. > Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not with God. Everything is possible with God." Jesus's analogy about a camel going through the eye of a needle is commentary on the situation that he and his disciples just witnessed. The rich man thinks that he can earn his way into heaven through good deeds: he's asking "what must I do to inherit eternal life", and probably hoping for a pat on the back from Jesus for all the good things he's done. But instead Jesus identifies a much deeper issue in his life: his earthly wealth is more important to him than anything else, even his eternal destiny! The point of the camel analogy is that riches are a distraction that make it impossible to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." > Surely from what he's said it's obvious that poor people can be saved. And when Jesus says 'for God all things are possible', isn't he implying that some rich people might get into heaven? So why do people interpret the passage as Jesus saying this is impossible? The central point of the Bible is that there are no "good people". Everyone is morally corrupt in one way or another, and cannot be saved through their own effort, only through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it." (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. Romans 3, Psalm 14, John 14). A lot (most?) of Jesus's teachings, including the passage in the OP, are addressed to people who think they are "good enough" and showing them to be self-righteous, hypocritical, and in need of salvation just as badly as everybody else.
felipeerias 3y ago
The passage basically says that rich people can not save themselves. This contrasted with other religions at the time where the wealthy and powerful could organize large games and sacrifices to please the gods while living a life of debauchery. The "eye of a needle" has been making rich people anxious since the beginning of Christianity. Early Christians eventually addressed these anxieties by stating that rich people could only be saved if they became pious and devoted their wealth to help others. Peter Brown's "Through the Eye of a Needle" is an amazing book about all of this.
alternative_a 3y ago
The entire “mystery” is due to you, the apostles, and everyone else not understanding what Jesus (AS) was talking about. I remind you in the Gospels (feeding the multitude) Jesus chides the apostles for taking things literally. An entire thread is filled with discussion of “rope” and “camels” and the matter is missed. “Kingdom of heaven” and “perfect” are the terms you should be focusing on. Kingdom of heaven is the highest state of consciousness. Jesus (AS) certainly did not say “rich people will go to hell”. Try this: “Only with the help of God can a ‘rich’ man enter into the state of perfection known as “Kingdom of heaven””. The most ludicrous reading is the official one: A goody goody who is even being more of a goody goody (‘I got to go and put things in order’) is rebuked. Is he is going to “hell”? Nonsense. To be rich means to have possession. To have possessions means you have attachments. Attachment is contra detachment of the ascetics. “Who can be saved?” “Only with the help of God” will a goody goody pass through the TEST of “attachments”. Attachments that are the source “trials and temptations” and can lead us to the clutches of ”evil”. See Lord’s prayers for your morning instructions, dear ascetic follower of Jesus. (To follow means “do as i do”...) In sum: You will not go to hell if you have possessions. But you will not reach the state of “post-resurrection” 3 guys shining with light as amazed disciples look on. Kingdom of heaven is a state of being here and now. What keeps us from experiencing it is ‘attachment’. Not even the most innocent of attachments are excused. “Then who can be saved?” .
- rzl1235 3y ago
  [dead]

tines 3y ago

Because it was thought that being rich meant you were close to God. If the people they thought were closest to God could scarcely be saved, then how could anyone else be? So the thinking goes. It's an argument a fortiori. Of course Jesus' point was that the poor and sinners are much closer to the kingdom of God than the rich, hence their astonishment.

542458 3y ago
Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This is illustrated in John 9, where the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man: His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is why Jesus going around healing the blind and lepers was significant and a bit shocking: those were supposed to be the bad people, and if their state was punishment for their evil why would you go and help them? But the gospel message is that we all do bad things, and judged on our own merits we all fall short of goodness. But there is grace, and by grace the bad things we do can be put away.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. This is one explanation for why the previous president had so much support among evangelicals: He's rich and so it must mean God likes him. This is also (as the article suggests) why there has been a long and concerted effort to suggest that Jesus wasn't suggesting something entirely impossible (like the debunked city gate explanation)
  - danans 3y ago
    > American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
      - danans 3y ago
        > Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible. There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions. I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.
jknoepfler 3y ago
That isn't the natural reading of the passage. The listeners express surprise when Jesus says "rich folks won't enter the kingdom of God". They then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? Jesus then says "no mortal person," explaining that only God makes it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't say poor people. He says "nobody". The point is that there is no material means to enter heaven. Rich and poor are identical in this regard.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Then why does he single out the rich folks? It would make more sense in your interpretation to not include the "rich" and imply that any man entering heaven was impossible.
  - teach 3y ago
    Because Jesus loved using parables, a specific type of joke with a setup and a reveal that contradicts the audience's expectations.
- tines 3y ago
  > they then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? > Jesus then says "no mortal person," Except this isn't what Jesus says. He says "With man 'it' is impossible." Jesus' response doesn't even make grammatical sense as a reply to "who can be saved?" because it isn't a reply to that. The question "Who can be saved?" was posed among the listeners to themselves, not to Christ: > And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? Jesus' statement "with man it is impossible" is a continuation of the thought that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven (so hard that it requires a miracle above what's required for a normal person). It's impossible with men that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle, but with God, it's possible (and thus possible for a rich man to be saved, though not easy). It's not that there's anything good about poor people that gets them in; it's that rich people don't want in. Any interpretation that makes it as easy for rich people to enter as it is for poor people is missing the clear meaning of the words.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NobodyNada 3y ago

Let's look at the context before the quote too: Mark 10:17-27 (NLT) > As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" > "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'" > "Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young." > Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." > At this the man's face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. > Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!" This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" > The disciples were astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" they asked. > Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not with God. Everything is possible with God." Jesus's analogy about a camel going through the eye of a needle is commentary on the situation that he and his disciples just witnessed. The rich man thinks that he can earn his way into heaven through good deeds: he's asking "what must I do to inherit eternal life", and probably hoping for a pat on the back from Jesus for all the good things he's done. But instead Jesus identifies a much deeper issue in his life: his earthly wealth is more important to him than anything else, even his eternal destiny! The point of the camel analogy is that riches are a distraction that make it impossible to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." > Surely from what he's said it's obvious that poor people can be saved. And when Jesus says 'for God all things are possible', isn't he implying that some rich people might get into heaven? So why do people interpret the passage as Jesus saying this is impossible? The central point of the Bible is that there are no "good people". Everyone is morally corrupt in one way or another, and cannot be saved through their own effort, only through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it." (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. Romans 3, Psalm 14, John 14). A lot (most?) of Jesus's teachings, including the passage in the OP, are addressed to people who think they are "good enough" and showing them to be self-righteous, hypocritical, and in need of salvation just as badly as everybody else.

felipeerias 3y ago

The passage basically says that rich people can not save themselves. This contrasted with other religions at the time where the wealthy and powerful could organize large games and sacrifices to please the gods while living a life of debauchery. The "eye of a needle" has been making rich people anxious since the beginning of Christianity. Early Christians eventually addressed these anxieties by stating that rich people could only be saved if they became pious and devoted their wealth to help others. Peter Brown's "Through the Eye of a Needle" is an amazing book about all of this.

alternative_a 3y ago

The entire “mystery” is due to you, the apostles, and everyone else not understanding what Jesus (AS) was talking about. I remind you in the Gospels (feeding the multitude) Jesus chides the apostles for taking things literally. An entire thread is filled with discussion of “rope” and “camels” and the matter is missed. “Kingdom of heaven” and “perfect” are the terms you should be focusing on. Kingdom of heaven is the highest state of consciousness. Jesus (AS) certainly did not say “rich people will go to hell”. Try this: “Only with the help of God can a ‘rich’ man enter into the state of perfection known as “Kingdom of heaven””. The most ludicrous reading is the official one: A goody goody who is even being more of a goody goody (‘I got to go and put things in order’) is rebuked. Is he is going to “hell”? Nonsense. To be rich means to have possession. To have possessions means you have attachments. Attachment is contra detachment of the ascetics. “Who can be saved?” “Only with the help of God” will a goody goody pass through the TEST of “attachments”. Attachments that are the source “trials and temptations” and can lead us to the clutches of ”evil”. See Lord’s prayers for your morning instructions, dear ascetic follower of Jesus. (To follow means “do as i do”...) In sum: You will not go to hell if you have possessions. But you will not reach the state of “post-resurrection” 3 guys shining with light as amazed disciples look on. Kingdom of heaven is a state of being here and now. What keeps us from experiencing it is ‘attachment’. Not even the most innocent of attachments are excused. “Then who can be saved?” .

rzl1235 3y ago
[dead]