4 ms·

>Without knowing the expression, “camel through a needle’s eye” sounds a bit fanciful, like there must be some sort of fairy-tale exception or trick to make it

>Without knowing the expression, “camel through a needle’s eye” sounds a bit fanciful, like there must be some sort of fairy-tale exception or trick to make it work But isn't that the whole point?

grotorea 3y ago
Good point but since the whole controversy is about what's the correct point of view to be defended, it depends. My guess: the "fairy-tale exception or trick" could be simply divine mercy towards the rich he feels are deserving. The rich can get into heaven not through brute force but through God's will.
- mminer237 3y ago
  The point of Christ's teaching is that rich or poor, no one is deserving. It's only by admitting one's sinfulness and inadequacy and turning from it to instead accept God's mercy and gift of Christ that anyone can be saved.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      Yes, Jesus is saying something particular about the rich here, but not that they are particularly sinful. Rather, they are particularly susceptible to trusting in their money and placing it above God (making an idol of it) which gets in the way of their being willing to follow Jesus and put their faith in Him. This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24) The rich generally have a master they are unwilling to give up. It is money. They think they are the master of their money, but their money is their master. Yet by God's grace, He can even change the heart of the rich to love Him instead of being devoted to money. Praise God for that. It is indeed a miracle. As crazy as a camel going through the eye of a needle.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        In the preceding sections, Jesus basically tells the guy, who’d otherwise lived by the commandments, to come back after giving up all his money and stuff. It seems to me that he’s looking for some more concrete action than an internal change of heart. If I were a Christian I’d make sure to die poor at least, just to be safe.
        lo_zamoyski 3y ago
        It is not the concrete action per se, but even if it were, the concrete action would involve a decision that entails a certain "change of heart". In that very act of relinquishing all one's wealth to follow Christ, you would have assented to and demonstrated your faithfulness to the proposition: to follow God is more important than to be wealthy, and if God were to call me to part ways with my wealth to follow God, then I should and would do it. The concrete act makes manifest the very good in question. It demonstrates and attains the temperance and rational order of the soul in question. Faith without deeds is dead. We all like to think highly of ourselves, but if we were to find ourselves in that situation, how would we react? Most of us would behave exactly like the rich man. Few have the integrity to meet such austere moral standards. Few of us have the humility to admit that we're no better than the rich man.
        jdbernard 3y ago
        I believe that a key position of the early church's teaching is that an inward change of the heart is not genuine if it does not manifest in outward concrete action. That's how you reconcile, for example, Paul's statements on salvation by grace and not works, with James' demonstration of his faith by his works. The works themselves don't save you, it is the sincere turning of the heart and belief in Jesus Christ. Paul made this point firmly to counter others who were teaching salvation by adherence to Jewish ceremonial law. But if your belief in Christ and turning of your heart does not result in changes in how you live, specifically following the commandments of Jesus, then James would question the sincerity of your conviction.
      - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
        This is indeed a passage that is easily misinterpreted by many of its readers. A key to interpreting it correctly, is to note whom Christ is addressing when he uses the expression in question. _It isn't the rich man._ The rich man had already left, because he was not prepared to prioritize God over material riches. The majority of people listening were not rich. They were the common folk. The lesson is, as you've made clear IMO, that the greatest good is God, and prioritizing other goods above God is to make a god of lesser goods, and that this does not lead to the ultimate happiness that is what Heaven is by definition, which consists ultimately of unity with the authentic greatest good first and foremost. And indeed, as other verses state, those who prioritize lesser goods will ultimately have neither the greatest good nor lesser goods. Everyday experience tends to agree with this as well. Obsessive pursuit of lesser goods (which are indeed good) often makes those goods inaccessible to us. We lose on all fronts. And so, in a very real sense, as you also note, there is nothing especially important about the rich man per se. The poor can lust just as much, if not more, for money than the rich, because the poor can more easily fantasize about and project hopes onto what they do not have; the rich man is more likely to have become disillusioned with his riches.
  - k3vinw 3y ago
    Exactly. This is quite a radical departure from the fire and brimstone found in the Old Testament.
    - marcinreal 3y ago
      I guess that most applies to the Prophets, who were warning a sinful nation of impending destruction, but it still seems like an oversimplistic view of the scriptures. Even in the Prophets, God's love and mercy are emphasized many times.
bee_rider 3y ago
Seems like he’s telling the guy to sell all his stuff and give it away, or bugger off.
- crdrost 3y ago
  He's not, not really. This is neither directed at the guy nor is it all that fanciful. To understand it you do need to read it very carefully, though, this is kind of an "intellectual exercise" bit from Mark in my view. Sorry, this will be a long comment. So the rich man asks Jesus for how to inherit eternal life, and he says "you know what to do," and the man says "... but I've already been doing that." Jesus does not contradict him by pointing out any broken commandments. So if you read carefully, as far as that first part of the exchange goes down, Jesus has promised that this man merely has to keep firm with these commandments and he will inherit eternal life. But, this man has already been doing what he's supposed to be doing, and somehow he's still here asking Jesus to help him out. The careful reading is that the rich man has a conflicted, uncertain heart. He has been promised eternal life but wants the certainty that Jesus is correct. And Jesus then "loves him" and offers him a way to get precisely that certainty, basically saying "leave everything behind and follow me... You want the proof that I am who I say I am and when I promise that you have eternal life, you can be sure of that promise? The only way is to live with me for a long time, see the masses healed, see the sacrifice that I am about to make for you on the cross, and then you will have this certainty." The selling of stuff has two functions that the text calls out here, the first is to "give the proceeds to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven," notice that this does not speak directly about inheriting the kingdom, Jesus already covered that part. This is about getting even greater rewards and celebration once you get into the kingdom, because you took care of the poor and needy in this life and that will be part of your legacy. And the second is "then come, follow me." The problem in the last part is that the property is an obstacle to following Jesus, it is that this guy can't leave his property behind without neglecting it, or else he's going to have to leave Jesus later to make sure that the fields are being plowed and the sheep are grazing and whatever else his property is doing for him. Property implies responsibility, Jesus is asking him to lay down all his other responsibilities if he wants to become a follower and have the certainty that he wants to achieve. So Jesus doesn't say to bugger off, he says precisely the opposite, to not bugger off... and then the guy buggers off anyway! It's a theme in Mark that usually when Jesus or an angel tells someone to do something, they do the exact opposite. "Go and proclaim the good news! ... and the women didn't tell anybody." This is one of those cases. "Stay with me, I'll give you the certainty you crave" and he just goes off upset. At this point he "went away," he's not the recipient of the camel/eye-of-the-needle saying, which is addressed to Jesus's disciples, almost exasperatedly. Jesus says of this situation, where the man goes away grieving because of his possessions, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples are "perplexed," to which Jesus first broadens to "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (some texts add "for those who trust in riches" but I think that was not original here). And then he targets the camel/eye-of-the-needle analogy specifically at the rich. If you understand all of this context then the camel thing makes sense, he literally has to shed all of this extra body-weight -- the responsibility, the worry, the misinterpretations when even a hint of danger towards your carefully curated nest egg presents itself -- to get the flexibility and finesse needed to just do the right thing and follow where Jesus leads him. It's not directly about "sell all of your stuff and give it away or bugger off", the careful reading is that it's about "stop lugging all of this dead weight around, because you can't take it with you anyway when you die and your soul passes through that tiniest of gates. If you're attached to all this baggage you won't be able to make it." This is probably related to several mystical interpretations of Jesus's own ministry on Earth being related to a process of "self-emptying" but this comment is already way way too long.

grotorea 3y ago

Good point but since the whole controversy is about what's the correct point of view to be defended, it depends. My guess: the "fairy-tale exception or trick" could be simply divine mercy towards the rich he feels are deserving. The rich can get into heaven not through brute force but through God's will.

mminer237 3y ago
The point of Christ's teaching is that rich or poor, no one is deserving. It's only by admitting one's sinfulness and inadequacy and turning from it to instead accept God's mercy and gift of Christ that anyone can be saved.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    Yes, Jesus is saying something particular about the rich here, but not that they are particularly sinful. Rather, they are particularly susceptible to trusting in their money and placing it above God (making an idol of it) which gets in the way of their being willing to follow Jesus and put their faith in Him. This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24) The rich generally have a master they are unwilling to give up. It is money. They think they are the master of their money, but their money is their master. Yet by God's grace, He can even change the heart of the rich to love Him instead of being devoted to money. Praise God for that. It is indeed a miracle. As crazy as a camel going through the eye of a needle.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      In the preceding sections, Jesus basically tells the guy, who’d otherwise lived by the commandments, to come back after giving up all his money and stuff. It seems to me that he’s looking for some more concrete action than an internal change of heart. If I were a Christian I’d make sure to die poor at least, just to be safe.
      - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
        It is not the concrete action per se, but even if it were, the concrete action would involve a decision that entails a certain "change of heart". In that very act of relinquishing all one's wealth to follow Christ, you would have assented to and demonstrated your faithfulness to the proposition: to follow God is more important than to be wealthy, and if God were to call me to part ways with my wealth to follow God, then I should and would do it. The concrete act makes manifest the very good in question. It demonstrates and attains the temperance and rational order of the soul in question. Faith without deeds is dead. We all like to think highly of ourselves, but if we were to find ourselves in that situation, how would we react? Most of us would behave exactly like the rich man. Few have the integrity to meet such austere moral standards. Few of us have the humility to admit that we're no better than the rich man.
      - jdbernard 3y ago
        I believe that a key position of the early church's teaching is that an inward change of the heart is not genuine if it does not manifest in outward concrete action. That's how you reconcile, for example, Paul's statements on salvation by grace and not works, with James' demonstration of his faith by his works. The works themselves don't save you, it is the sincere turning of the heart and belief in Jesus Christ. Paul made this point firmly to counter others who were teaching salvation by adherence to Jewish ceremonial law. But if your belief in Christ and turning of your heart does not result in changes in how you live, specifically following the commandments of Jesus, then James would question the sincerity of your conviction.
    - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
      This is indeed a passage that is easily misinterpreted by many of its readers. A key to interpreting it correctly, is to note whom Christ is addressing when he uses the expression in question. _It isn't the rich man._ The rich man had already left, because he was not prepared to prioritize God over material riches. The majority of people listening were not rich. They were the common folk. The lesson is, as you've made clear IMO, that the greatest good is God, and prioritizing other goods above God is to make a god of lesser goods, and that this does not lead to the ultimate happiness that is what Heaven is by definition, which consists ultimately of unity with the authentic greatest good first and foremost. And indeed, as other verses state, those who prioritize lesser goods will ultimately have neither the greatest good nor lesser goods. Everyday experience tends to agree with this as well. Obsessive pursuit of lesser goods (which are indeed good) often makes those goods inaccessible to us. We lose on all fronts. And so, in a very real sense, as you also note, there is nothing especially important about the rich man per se. The poor can lust just as much, if not more, for money than the rich, because the poor can more easily fantasize about and project hopes onto what they do not have; the rich man is more likely to have become disillusioned with his riches.
- k3vinw 3y ago
  Exactly. This is quite a radical departure from the fire and brimstone found in the Old Testament.
  - marcinreal 3y ago
    I guess that most applies to the Prophets, who were warning a sinful nation of impending destruction, but it still seems like an oversimplistic view of the scriptures. Even in the Prophets, God's love and mercy are emphasized many times.

bee_rider 3y ago

Seems like he’s telling the guy to sell all his stuff and give it away, or bugger off.

crdrost 3y ago
He's not, not really. This is neither directed at the guy nor is it all that fanciful. To understand it you do need to read it very carefully, though, this is kind of an "intellectual exercise" bit from Mark in my view. Sorry, this will be a long comment. So the rich man asks Jesus for how to inherit eternal life, and he says "you know what to do," and the man says "... but I've already been doing that." Jesus does not contradict him by pointing out any broken commandments. So if you read carefully, as far as that first part of the exchange goes down, Jesus has promised that this man merely has to keep firm with these commandments and he will inherit eternal life. But, this man has already been doing what he's supposed to be doing, and somehow he's still here asking Jesus to help him out. The careful reading is that the rich man has a conflicted, uncertain heart. He has been promised eternal life but wants the certainty that Jesus is correct. And Jesus then "loves him" and offers him a way to get precisely that certainty, basically saying "leave everything behind and follow me... You want the proof that I am who I say I am and when I promise that you have eternal life, you can be sure of that promise? The only way is to live with me for a long time, see the masses healed, see the sacrifice that I am about to make for you on the cross, and then you will have this certainty." The selling of stuff has two functions that the text calls out here, the first is to "give the proceeds to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven," notice that this does not speak directly about inheriting the kingdom, Jesus already covered that part. This is about getting even greater rewards and celebration once you get into the kingdom, because you took care of the poor and needy in this life and that will be part of your legacy. And the second is "then come, follow me." The problem in the last part is that the property is an obstacle to following Jesus, it is that this guy can't leave his property behind without neglecting it, or else he's going to have to leave Jesus later to make sure that the fields are being plowed and the sheep are grazing and whatever else his property is doing for him. Property implies responsibility, Jesus is asking him to lay down all his other responsibilities if he wants to become a follower and have the certainty that he wants to achieve. So Jesus doesn't say to bugger off, he says precisely the opposite, to not bugger off... and then the guy buggers off anyway! It's a theme in Mark that usually when Jesus or an angel tells someone to do something, they do the exact opposite. "Go and proclaim the good news! ... and the women didn't tell anybody." This is one of those cases. "Stay with me, I'll give you the certainty you crave" and he just goes off upset. At this point he "went away," he's not the recipient of the camel/eye-of-the-needle saying, which is addressed to Jesus's disciples, almost exasperatedly. Jesus says of this situation, where the man goes away grieving because of his possessions, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples are "perplexed," to which Jesus first broadens to "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (some texts add "for those who trust in riches" but I think that was not original here). And then he targets the camel/eye-of-the-needle analogy specifically at the rich. If you understand all of this context then the camel thing makes sense, he literally has to shed all of this extra body-weight -- the responsibility, the worry, the misinterpretations when even a hint of danger towards your carefully curated nest egg presents itself -- to get the flexibility and finesse needed to just do the right thing and follow where Jesus leads him. It's not directly about "sell all of your stuff and give it away or bugger off", the careful reading is that it's about "stop lugging all of this dead weight around, because you can't take it with you anyway when you die and your soul passes through that tiniest of gates. If you're attached to all this baggage you won't be able to make it." This is probably related to several mystical interpretations of Jesus's own ministry on Earth being related to a process of "self-emptying" but this comment is already way way too long.