6 ms·

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 anyon

by 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.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
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.

by tines 3y ago

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.
- Amezarak 3y ago

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.