"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...."

oceanclub

I've seen references in this group to the sin of homosexuality, despite the fact that Jesus himself never said anything about this. OK, fair enough.

However, one thing that Jesus did explicitly talk about was wealth, when he made the above statement. It's pretty clear cut and unambigious. And yet it's freely ignored by Christians. Indeed, the US Family Research Council has just come out with a list of "sins" that concentrate to a large extent on how tax, even inheritance tax is evil:

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09F17.pdf

Can anyone explain this conundrum to me? Surely commandments made by Jesus himself are considered pretty important?

P.

PDN

The reason you see references to homosexuality here is generally because atheists keep wanting to talk about it.

Jesus did not condemn wealth, but he condemned greed and the love of money. I regularly preach on this and I hear it spoken about often in other churches.

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

The reason you see references to homosexuality here is generally because atheists keep wanting to talk about it.

And Christians don't bring up the issue at all? That's at odds with what I see. But anyway...

Jesus did not condemn wealth, but he condemned greed and the love of money. I regularly preach on this and I hear it spoken about often in other churches.

Just in case I'm accused of paraphrasing, here's the entire context:

http://bible.cc/mark/10-25.htm

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”

20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it ise to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

It seems absolutely clear that this passage has nothing to do with greed. There is no sense in which the young man appears to be greedy, wants more wealth than he already has, or wants to get wealth in a immoral way. Jesus explicitly tells him to give his wealth away to the poor, and then states clearly it is hard for the rich (not the greedy) to enter heaven.

P.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

I've seen references in this group to the sin of homosexuality, despite the fact that Jesus himself never said anything about this. OK, fair enough.

However, one thing that Jesus did explicitly talk about was wealth, when he made the above statement. It's pretty clear cut and unambigious. And yet it's freely ignored by Christians. Indeed, the US Family Research Council has just come out with a list of "sins" that concentrate to a large extent on how tax, even inheritance tax is evil:


Can anyone explain this conundrum to me? Surely commandments made by Jesus himself are considered pretty important?

Consider the stories essential elements in sequence:

A rich man approaches Jesus looking to be told how he can gain eternal life. "What must I do.." he asks.

The man is asked whether he's kept the Law and he acknowledges that he has. Jesus has one more legal hurdle for him to jump through - and it is a thing this man cannot do (with Jesus, of course knowing that he can't do it).

"Give up your wealth and follow me" (involving as it does the Law which demands that a person love God with all their heart, soul and mind)

And so this wealth-attached man walks away saddened .. and in possession of a vital lesson: "I cannot do what it takes to gain eternal life" It's a lesson intended for everyone.

If the man had been attached to power he would have been asked to give up his power. If to laziness, his laziness. If to gossiping, his gossiping. Jesus has no objection to wealth per se, he objects (gently) to people thinking they can earn their own salvation. And so he sets the bar we've to jump over too high for us to jump over.

Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle high

oceanclub

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so this wealth-attached man walks away saddened .. and in possession of a vital lesson: you cannot do what it takes to gain eternal life.

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

Jesus doesn't say "a rich man" - it's not a parable. The story starts out saying that a rich man approach Jesus. So it is speaking about that rich man. Which is not to say we can't see the message and see it's greater significance.

I'm sure you could find more than one rich person in the world who would give up their wealth for eternal life if asked. (Bear in mind that if you so much as possess a bank account you're classed an being in the top 10% of richest people on earth.).

Which misses the point of the story. Everyone on earth could be asked a question like that: to give up something they just couldn't give up - in exchange for eternal life.

All it takes is God knowing which question to ask you.

Hardly difficult..

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

This guy was very attached to his wealth, so much so that he was unwilling to foresake his wealth to follow Jesus.

Just in case I'm accused of paraphrasing, here's the entire context:

No, not the entire context. For that you would have had toinclude verses 26 and 27: The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

So Jesus is saying that rich people can become Christians, but it is much harder for them than for the poor. He also said that it is easier for those who are aware of their sinfulness to become His followers than those who are self-righteous.

This is, I believe, one of the reasons why Christianity is growing so rapidly in the developing world, and why atheism (by that i mean the voluntarily chosen variety) tends to be much more prevalent among the 3 W's (wealthy, western and white).

oceanclub

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus doesn't say "a rich man"

He does in Matthew 19:23-24 (see bolded below):

So it is speaking about that rich man.

Yes, and then he goes on to make a point about rich people in general:

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

It even states that the disciples were amazed at his words.

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

P.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

P.

To be fair, your wording was rather ambiguous. I had to read your post a couple of times to guess whether by "a rich man" you were referring to the words of Jesus or to the specific young man in the account.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

And Christians don't bring up the issue at all? That's at odds with what I see. But anyway...

I can't remember a single instance in my church over the last number of years when homosexuality was mentioned. I do, however, remember when the pastor mentioned that he was talking to a transgendered person who assumed that (s)he would not be welcomed in the church, which wasn't the case. That is not to say that Christians are without opinions on the subject of homosexuality or homosexual acts. But as with all walks of life, some people are more tolerant than others.

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems absolutely clear that this passage has nothing to do with greed. There is no sense in which the young man appears to be greedy, wants more wealth than he already has, or wants to get wealth in a immoral way. Jesus explicitly tells him to give his wealth away to the poor, and then states clearly it is hard for the rich (not the greedy) to enter heaven.

P.

I suspect that the low levels of religiosity in certain European countries could be linked to people having financial security. If you can cater to your needs and desires I guess God gets forgotten. Besides, how do one determine what constitutes rich? What is the yardstick that wealth measured against?

As for the US Family Research Council, I have no idea who they are or why I should pay them any attention. Reading the first link there are some very odd US-centric sins listed. Some of the more amusing (or scary) are as follows.

• Looking away as America’s spiritual & religious history were rewritten
• Deceitfully leading America into New World Order
• Deliberate destruction of America’s military defense
• Imposition of Statism and Socialism in every arena of American life (schools, medicine, business, charity, etc.)
  and my personal favourite
• Usurpation of parents’ authority by indoctrinating children into sexual promiscuity, pantheism (worship of the environment), polytheism (multiculturalism), atheistic humanism, liberal politics, socialism & statism under the guise of public “education” while failing to teach fundamental academics or simple truths of right & wrong.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

[*]Looking away as America’s spiritual & religious history were rewritten
[*]Deceitfully leading America into New World Order
[*]Deliberate destruction of America’s military defense
[*]Imposition of Statism and Socialism in every arena of American life (schools, medicine, business, charity, etc.)[/I]
[*]and my personal favourite - Usurpation of parents’ authority by indoctrinating children into sexual promiscuity, pantheism (worship of the environment), polytheism (multiculturalism), atheistic humanism, liberal politics, socialism & statism under the guise of public “education” while failing to teach fundamental academics or simple truths of right & wrong.

Do they provide free tin-foil hats - or would that be too socialistic?

Splendour

Hi oceanclub,

I think Jesus looked into the heart of this particular rich man and knew that if he didn't give up his wealth it would always get in the way between him and God.
Also as PDN has pointed out, it can be more difficult for a rich person to get into Heaven as alot of the time money becomes a god to them and therefore they've no need of the one true God.

oceanclub

Splendour wrote: »

Hi oceanclub,

Also as PDN has pointed out, it can be more difficult for a rich person to get into Heaven as alot of the time money becomes a god to them and therefore they've no need of the one true God.

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:

21Jesus looked at him and loved him.

So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

It's not the case that Jesus was talking to Seanie Fitz.

P.

Splendour

oceanclub wrote: »

So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

P.

Yep.He could keep all the commandments and yet still not get into Heaven if money got in the way of a relationship with God.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:



So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

P.

I think you actually miss the subtitle behind Jesus' words. Keeping the commandments is good - being good is good - but it's not the way to redemption.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:

You seem to be confusing two different things.

Keeping the commandments is one thing. Making money your god is something else.

The young man chose to keep his money rather than to be a follower of Jesus, so his money does appear to have been his god.

oceanclub

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Why would you give up even after 3 people all try to help you to understand the deeper meaning behind the words.

oceanclub

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would you give up even after 3 people all try to help you to understand the deeper meaning behind the words.

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

Splendour

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Contrast Jesus telling the rich man to give up his wealth with this story:

John 12

3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

In this incident Jesus lets the woman go ahead with annointing his feet when the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

Hmm, it seems to me that you started the thread with a bit of a preconceived notion, and I doubt anything we say will make much difference to that.

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved, and I personally know a number of Christians who have given away everything they owned when they felt that was what the Lord was asking of them

I must say I find it rather ironic when an atheist accuses others of explaining away inconvenient teachings.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

I don't know what to say. If you come to the table with such cynicism and suspicion then I'm not surprised you are an atheist. Ho-hum...

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved, and I personally know a number of Christians who have given away everything they owned when they felt that was what the Lord was asking of them

But is a camel passing through the eye of a needle not impossible? Therefore he is saying that its not harder but for a rich person to be saved but impossible? Or was Jesus just exaggerating for effect?

Sorry to come here and dispute what the Bible means, I'm certainly not an authority but just curious.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

He does in Matthew 19:23-24 (see bolded below):

Not in the section of the story with which we are dealing. The man is a specific man, and is posed a specific challenge and fails that challenge.

Yes, and then he goes on to make a point about rich people in general:

Indeed. The 'a rich man' widens the specific case to make a general point. And given Jesus' propensity to talk obliquely, that widening of the specific case need not be restricted to money wealth. It could be referring to any wealth that becomes a god.

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

Given who we're speaking about (we are assuming for the sake of discussion), hair splitting is warranted. When God says something you'd better give it good attention before filing it away under 'completely understood'.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

That's a little weak.

Jesus is using story and parable to turn specific instances into generalised principles that will both apply and appeal ("to those who have ears to hear") all people at all times. Working for your salvation is a universal, timeless aspect of man. And it is something that is done in order that man can keep possession of the gods he has made for himself: "I'll obey your law on murder, adultery, honouring father and mother - just let me keep my god (wealth or whatever)"

Granted, you might not lick this overview off this particular story. But folk here aren't taking this story in isolation.

PDN

uncleoswald wrote: »

But is a camel passing through the eye of a needle not impossible? Therefore he is saying that its not harder but for a rich person to be saved but impossible? Or was Jesus just exaggerating for effect?

Sorry to come here and dispute what the Bible means, I'm certainly not an authority but just curious.

He's obviously not saying it's impossible when, in the passage we're quoting, He says that with God all things are possible.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved..

Not quite. Not me

I don't see the passage indicating it harder for a rich man than any other man. Hard for a rich man (without comparison with poor men). And easier for a camel to pass through.. (without comparison with poor men)

I'd warrant that by 'rich', Jesus isn't limiting himself to money wealth. It's worldy richness of one form or another than keeps a man haughty before God. It's worldy richness that stands in the way of the spiritual poverty that characterizes those who will see God.

A pauper can be rich in many ways - making it as hard for him as for a rich man.

prinz

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

If you were that smart you'd know that there was a thread on wealth and Christianity only last week or so. Maybe you should have read that. The same parable was included IIRC.

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

He's obviously not saying it's impossible when, in the passage we're quoting, He says that with God all things are possible.

So since god can pass a camel through the eye of a needle fairly easily the whole message becomes kind of pointless? So how does a rich person achieve saviour? By becoming rich by accident and not by seeking it? Or just been generous with their money? How generous?

It is a shame minority Christian organisations such as this US Family Research Council get so much press but crazy people who kick up a fuss will always make for a better story then rational types.

Fanny Cradock

uncleoswald wrote: »

So since god can pass a camel through the eye of a needle fairly easily the whole message becomes kind of pointless?

You do realise that this story isn't about camels, right? It is simply a tool that is used to emphasise the difficulty a person with skewed loyalties (wealth or whatever) will have in giving himself over to God. You are a professional writer. I can't see why this concept should be difficult for you to understand.

uncleoswald wrote: »

So how does a rich person achieve saviour? By becoming rich by accident and not by seeking it? Or just been generous with their money? How generous?

The same way as poor, black, gay, straight, etc., etc. people do - by following Jesus.

uncleoswald wrote: »

It is a shame minority Christian organisations such as this US Family Research Council get so much press but crazy people who kick up a fuss will always make for a better story then rational types.

I'm not sure about the US Family Research Council - I've never heard of them - but isn't it always the same way? Fringe groups throughout all walks of life often generate the most noise and heat.

homer911

PDN wrote: »

Do they provide free tin-foil hats - or would that be too socialistic?

To stop the aliens reading their brain waves?

homer911

Nice wiki entry here on Tom Monaghan who founded Dominoes Pizza, sold it for a billion and has given most of it away (although his view are a bit extreme for many)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Monaghan

I like this entry:
The wealth Monaghan amassed from Domino's Pizza enabled a lavish lifestyle. However after reading a passage by C. S. Lewis on pride (from Mere Christianity[2]), Monaghan divested himself of most of his more ostentatious possessions, including the Detroit Tigers in 1992.[3] He gave up his lavish office suite at Domino's headquarters, replete with leather-tiled floors and an array of expensive Frank Lloyd Wright furnishings, turning it into a corporate reception room. He also ceased construction on a huge Wright-inspired mansion that was to be his home. (The house remains half-finished.)[3]

uncleoswald

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You do realise that this story isn't about camels, right? It is simply a tool that is used to emphasise the difficulty a person with skewed loyalties (wealth or whatever) will have in giving himself over to God. You are a professional writer. I can't see why this concept should be difficult for you to understand.

I was confused by your disrespectful tone as I felt my posts had been nothing but respectful, now I see you are confusing me with the OP. So thanks, I know the story isn't about camels:rolleyes: but it doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is saying it is almost* impossible for a rich man to get into heaven

The same way as poor, black, gay, straight, etc., etc. people do - by following Jesus.

But not quite the same as it is tougher for them, right? I presume either from the way they acquired their wealth or the destructive power of wealth, but that's what I'm asking.


I'm not sure about the US Family Research Council - I've never heard of them - but isn't it always the same way? Fringe groups throughout all walks of life often generate the most noise and heat.[/QUOTE]Yes that was my point, its a shame.

*but since nothing is impossible to God the general message becomes unclear to me.

Fanny Cradock

uncleoswald wrote: »

I was confused by your disrespectful tone as I felt my posts had been nothing but respectful, now I see you are confusing me with the OP. So thanks, I know the story isn't about camels:rolleyes: but it doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is saying it is almost* impossible for a rich man to get into heaven

Apologies for the confusion. No disrespect to you or the OP was intended.

I can't see the problem. If you have another god then it is difficult for you to know God. I don't believe you can spread yourself emotionally without becoming emotionally thin.

uncleoswald wrote: »

But not quite the same as it is tougher for them, right? I presume either from the way they acquired their wealth or the destructive power of wealth, but that's what I'm asking.

Same as above. It is tough for everybody. No matter who you are, if you have a focus other than God (and we are all guilty of this from time to time) then it is tough.

Soul Winner

oceanclub wrote: »

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

God is not against people having wealth, He's against wealth having them.

"But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth," Deuteronomy 8:18

Remember that Jesus also promised those who forsake all that they have and follow Him that they will receive a hundredfold the things that they have forsaken. Now if you forsake to get the hundredfold then you are not truly forsaking. God does not want anything to have any kind of hold over His people. He wants them to be willing to loose everything at the drop of a hat for His sake and He tests us periodically on this score. The rich young ruler flunked his particular test but we don't know the end of his story, only God knows that. What we must learn from the story, however, is that riches and wealth can hold us back from being 100% committed to God, they just happen to have that kind of power but Paul said that we should learn to abound as well as to be abased. In short God is not against people having wealth, He really isn't, He is only against wealth having such a hold on people that they presume that they have no need of God. That's why it is very hard for rich people to give up their wealth and follow Jesus. But in relation to the camel reference, some translations have it that its not a literal camel walking through the eye of a needle but a particular thread made from camel's hair that is very hard to thread through the eye of an needle but by no means impossible.

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

I must say I find it rather ironic when an atheist accuses others of explaining away inconvenient teachings.

Um, but the point is; I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. You do. I actually think that as spirtual teachers go, he was pretty sound.

And yet, I'm in the bizarre position of pointing out his words and saying that they sound pretty damn clear, but people who believe he was the son of God are saying "ah, but I think what he _meant_ to say was...."

P.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

And yet, I'm in the bizarre position of pointing out his words and saying that they sound pretty damn clear, but people who believe he was the son of God are saying "ah, but I think what he _meant_ to say was...."
.

It's not bizarre. It's just that you seem to want to put a particular interpretation on his words that others here don't share. Then, when someone points out to you what Jesus actually said, you accuse them of hairsplitting.

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

It's not bizarre. It's just that you seem to want to put a particular interpretation on his words that others here don't share. Then, when someone points out to you what Jesus actually said, you accuse them of hairsplitting.

Well, I'm back to the original point that I'm a reasonably well-educated person who works as a writer and the meaning seems perfectly obvious to me, which I guess means that either (a) I'm more of a hopeless writer than I thought or (b) the Bible isn't for me, since I obviously miss the meaning of it unless interpreted by someone else.

P.

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

It's not bizarre. It's just that you seem to want to put a particular interpretation on his words that others here don't share. Then, when someone points out to you what Jesus actually said, you accuse them of hairsplitting.

Why would I want to put this interpretation on it? Obviously since you can't read my mind, I can't convince you otherwise, but the reason I'm giving this interpretation is, that despite repeated readings of it and other people's attempts to convince me otherwise, that is honestly the only reading I can take from it.

As I said, let's leave it there, as it's my honest reading of it.

P.

antiskeptic

uncleoswald wrote: »

I was confused by your disrespectful tone as I felt my posts had been nothing but respectful, now I see you are confusing me with the OP. So thanks, I know the story isn't about camels:rolleyes: but it doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is saying it is almost* impossible for a rich man to get into heaven

The context of the story involves a rich man asking what he must do to get into heaven. And Jesus tells us that it's effectively impossible.

In which case, God is required. He can make possible what man finds impossible. Salvation by God - not by man: it's a theme majored on (and unpacked) in the epistles.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

Why would I want to put this interpretation on it? Obviously since you can't read my mind, I can't convince you otherwise, but the reason I'm giving this interpretation is, that despite repeated readings of it and other people's attempts to convince me otherwise, that is honestly the only reading I can take from it.

As I said, let's leave it there, as it's my honest reading of it.

P.

How honest a reading taken in isolation? The difference between your reading and ours is at least that of one in which we're taking all of what Jesus/the Bible says and letting it inform this passage.

It's called 'measuring scripture with scripture' in the trade.

hivizman

I wasn't able to contribute to this thread yesterday in real time, but I thought I'd add a couple of observations. First, this story of the rich man, and the saying about the camel and the eye of the needle, appears in all three of the synoptic gospels, which is perhaps a sign of its importance to the teachings of Jesus. Second, although all three gospels tell of the rich man going away "grieving" ("sorrowful", "sad" etc. depending on your translation), we don't know what he did next. The explanation for his reaction to the message that he should sell all he owned and give to the poor is "he was very rich". Maybe he felt that he could not give up his possessions, so he was sad because he concluded that he would not be able to share in the coming Kingdom. But perhaps he was sad more out of apprehension, because he knew that following the teaching of Jesus would represent a vastly more radical change of life than it would for someone who was not rich, that it would mean voluntarily moving from being among the "first" to among the "last". But who (other than God) knows - maybe the rich man did indeed sell all he had and give to the poor.

Finally, discussion of money and wealth reminds me of John Wesley's famous sermon on the use of money, from which I take the liberty of quoting:

You see the nature and extent of truly Christian prudence so far as it relates to the use of that great talent, money. Gain all you can, without hurting either yourself or your neighbour, in soul or body, by applying hereto with unintermitted diligence, and with all the understanding which God has given you; - save all you can, by cutting off every expense which serves only to indulge foolish desire; to gratify either the desire of flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life; waste nothing, living or dying, on sin or folly, whether for yourself or your children; - and then, give all you can, or, in other words, give all you have to God. Do not stint yourself to this or that proportion. "Render unto God" not a tenth, not a third, not half, but all that is God's, be it more or less; by employing all on yourself, your household, the household of faith, and all mankind, in such a manner, that you may give a good account of your stewardship when ye can be no longer stewards; in such a manner as the oracles of God direct, both by general and particular precepts; in such a manner, that whatever ye do may be "a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour to God", and that every act may be rewarded in that day when the Lord cometh with all his saints.

(Source: quoted in Ben Witherington III Jesus and Money, SPCK, 2010, p. 182)

StealthRolex

What about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ?

If you have wealth and give it away and someone else has wealth and gives it to you and you give it away and so on then you can easily find yourself in a situation where you are permanently wealthy.

This only works if everyone does to everyone else what they would like done to them and no-one gets selfish.

If only

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

Finally, discussion of money and wealth reminds me of John Wesley's famous sermon on the use of money, from which I take the liberty of quoting:

What are your opinions on BWIII? I just can't seem to shake the idea that I would be reading the theological musings of Sir Elton John. I wonder why?

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are your opinions on BWIII? I just can't seem to shake the idea that I would be reading the theological musings of Sir Elton John. I wonder why?

Nice photos! You've given me an idea for a book if I can persuade a publisher like SPCK to bring it out: The Theology of Elton John: Was Jesus the First Rocket Man?. [Reference to Ascension Day coming up on Thursday.]

More seriously, re Ben Witherington, I liked The Jesus Quest but was a bit disappointed with The Paul Quest. More recently, he seems to be writing "pot-boilers", such as The Gospel Code: Novel Claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci (a rebuttal, as if one were needed, of Dan Brown), and What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History, a rebuttal of the so-called "Gospel of Judas".

The book Jesus and Money, from which I took the quotation from John Wesley's sermon on the use of money, is written as a rebuttal of what is being called the "prosperity gospel", the idea that God provides material wealth for those who believe. It's often associated with claims that making donations to certain churches or evangelists will result in receiving rewards in this life. Witherington wanted to show that there is no basis for such a "gospel" in the Bible, and he reviews what the Old and New Testaments have to say about money and wealth. He borrows from the work of Sondra Wheeler (Wealth as Peril and Obligation: New Testament on Possessions , 1995), who sums up the Old Testament as putting forward four views:

1. Wealth as an occasion for idolatry
2. Wealth as the fruit of injustice
3. Wealth as a sign of faithfulness
4. Wealth as the reward for hard labour

Wheeler summarises the New Testament as follows:

1. Wealth as a stumbling block [this is the "camel and eye of needle" view of wealth]
2. Wealth as a competing object of devotion [you can't serve two masters, God and Mammon]
3. Wealth as a resource for human needs [our daily bread, but also the daily bread of others]
4. Wealth as a symptom of economic injustice

Witherington notes that the attitude to wealth gets less tolerant in the New Testament, where the assumption seems to be that anyone who has amassed wealth must have done so through some form of exploitation or oppression. He notes that the economy of first century Galilee and Judea was basically subsistence agrarian, with much land being concentrated into large estates, and heavy dependence of the economy on Herod and his family and on the Roman occupiers. In such a setting, it would be very difficult for someone to acquire or hold on to wealth without at least compromising with an oppressive state.

It is interesting that Matthew (19:20) describes the rich man as "young" and Luke (18:18) describes him as a "ruler". If he has indeed kept the commandments, then the rich man possibly gained his wealth by inheritance, but the maintenance of his wealth would involve ongoing oppression of the poor. The instruction "sell all you own and give to the poor" can thus be understood not only literally but as telling the rich man "put yourself in the shoes of the people upon whom your wealth depends, and then reflect upon whether having great wealth can be a good thing." And the rich man went away grieving, because he realised that, as a very rich person, he was implicated (through the existing socio-economic system) in very great oppression of the poor.

Fanny Cradock

A most excellent post.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

The context of the story involves a rich man asking what he must do to get into heaven. And Jesus tells us that it's effectively impossible.

In which case, God is required. He can make possible what man finds impossible. Salvation by God - not by man: it's a theme majored on (and unpacked) in the epistles.

This is IMO, concise, and can be validated by scripture.

hivizman wrote: »

Nice photos! You've given me an idea for a book if I can persuade a publisher like SPCK to bring it out: The Theology of Elton John: Was Jesus the First Rocket Man?. [Reference to Ascension Day coming up on Thursday.]

More seriously, re Ben Witherington, I liked The Jesus Quest but was a bit disappointed with The Paul Quest. More recently, he seems to be writing "pot-boilers", such as The Gospel Code: Novel Claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci (a rebuttal, as if one were needed, of Dan Brown), and What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History, a rebuttal of the so-called "Gospel of Judas".

The book Jesus and Money, from which I took the quotation from John Wesley's sermon on the use of money, is written as a rebuttal of what is being called the "prosperity gospel", the idea that God provides material wealth for those who believe. It's often associated with claims that making donations to certain churches or evangelists will result in receiving rewards in this life. Witherington wanted to show that there is no basis for such a "gospel" in the Bible, and he reviews what the Old and New Testaments have to say about money and wealth. He borrows from the work of Sondra Wheeler (Wealth as Peril and Obligation: New Testament on Possessions , 1995), who sums up the Old Testament as putting forward four views:

1. Wealth as an occasion for idolatry
2. Wealth as the fruit of injustice
3. Wealth as a sign of faithfulness
4. Wealth as the reward for hard labour

Wheeler summarises the New Testament as follows:

1. Wealth as a stumbling block [this is the "camel and eye of needle" view of wealth]
2. Wealth as a competing object of devotion [you can't serve two masters, God and Mammon]
3. Wealth as a resource for human needs [our daily bread, but also the daily bread of others]
4. Wealth as a symptom of economic injustice

Witherington notes that the attitude to wealth gets less tolerant in the New Testament, where the assumption seems to be that anyone who has amassed wealth must have done so through some form of exploitation or oppression. He notes that the economy of first century Galilee and Judea was basically subsistence agrarian, with much land being concentrated into large estates, and heavy dependence of the economy on Herod and his family and on the Roman occupiers. In such a setting, it would be very difficult for someone to acquire or hold on to wealth without at least compromising with an oppressive state.

It is interesting that Matthew (19:20) describes the rich man as "young" and Luke (18:18) describes him as a "ruler". If he has indeed kept the commandments, then the rich man possibly gained his wealth by inheritance, but the maintenance of his wealth would involve ongoing oppression of the poor. The instruction "sell all you own and give to the poor" can thus be understood not only literally but as telling the rich man "put yourself in the shoes of the people upon whom your wealth depends, and then reflect upon whether having great wealth can be a good thing." And the rich man went away grieving, because he realised that, as a very rich person, he was implicated (through the existing socio-economic system) in very great oppression of the poor.

This however, IMO, is reading things that aren't really there into the text. It might sound valid or whatever, but I see very, very little to suggest the above. Maybe its correct, but I really don't see how that can be read into it. There's a fine line.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

This, IMO, is reading things that aren't really there into the text. It might sound valid or whatever, but I see very, very little to suggest the above. Maybe its correct, but I really don't see how that can be read into it. There's a fine line.

What makes books such as the Bible so significant is that they encourage people to read them not just as straight statements (a focus on a so-called "literal meaning") but also as sources for reflection. Of course, interpretations that are actually contradictory to the words fall on the wrong side of the "fine line".

Incidentally, I followed up on the aphorism "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than . . .". Apparently, this form of comparison is found a few times in Jewish literature, such as the Babylonian Talmud (where the phrase refers to an elephant passing through the eye of a needle).

There's also a verse in the Qur'an (Surat Al-A'raf 7:40), which states that, for those who deny the revelation of the Qur'an, "the gates of heaven shall not open before them, nor shall they enter the garden, until the camel enters the eye of the needle." Virtually every translator renders the Arabic word al-jamalu in this verse as "the camel". However, Muhammad Asad argues that this word should actually have been read as al-jummalu, which means "the thick rope" or "the twisted cable". The image of trying to get a thick rope (rather than a thin thread) through the eye of a needle may have more logic about it than the image of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. Asad even criticises the wording of the Greek New Testament, claiming that Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic, where the consonantal root "g-m-l" is the equivalent of the Arabic "j-m-l", with different derivatives of this root having the meanings "thick rope" and "camel". So, according to Asad, it is possible that Jesus was actually referring to a thick rope rather than a camel, but the gospel writers thought he meant camel, so used the word καμηλον in their Greek manuscripts.

I don't find this particularly plausible, since the author of Mark's gospel is generally believed to have been a native speaker of Aramaic, and some early Church Fathers (for example, Papias, Origen, Tertullian) believed that much of Mark's gospel is derived from the recollections of Peter - surely between them they would not make a mistake over so vivid an image. Matthew and Luke probably took the story, and the camel image, from Mark.

StealthRolex

Matthew
24 Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven.'
25 When the disciples heard this they were astonished. 'Who can be saved, then?' they said.
26 Jesus gazed at them. 'By human resources', he told them, 'this is impossible; for God everything is possible.'

Mark
25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of God.'
26 They were more astonished than ever, saying to one another, 'In that case, who can be saved?'
27 Jesus gazed at them and said, 'By human resources it is impossible, but not for God: because for God everything is possible.'

Luke
25 Yes, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of God.'
26 Those who were listening said, 'In that case, who can be saved?'
27 He replied, 'Things that are impossible by human resources, are possible for God.'


Oceanclub,

By leaving out the reference to the God being capable of performing the impossible the statement regarding the needle and the camel can be made to look like wealth is a clearcut and unambiguous barrier.

By assuming the needle is a tool for sewing with thread adds to the confusion. While it may be a sewing needle it may equally be a passage way into the city wide enough to allow people but narrow enough to stop a camel - an older form of what we know today as bollards and traffic calming measures.

Note also the remarkable coherence of the three records.

So while Jesus did refer to wealth as an issue to be dealt with - how much wealth does one person actually need?,
do those who give to charity and tell the world serve themselves or serve their fellow man?
if you give to charity and never leave yourself short who do you serve?

Wealth is not a barrier to heaven but a barrier to the Truth and a hindrance to finding Jesus. It facilitates distraction and temptation.
Those with money worry about it more than those who have nothing.
Those with money worry about it more than they worry about their souls.

But Jesus also says that while a camel can pass through a small opening easier than rich man can enter heaven it is not impossible for either to happen.

StealthRolex

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

If I may make an observation - to be a professional writer one must first be able to read in a professional manner. Taking the line about the camel and the needle and comparing it to the more serious barrier of tying oneself to the flesh is taking what Jesus said out of context. The entire passage is about Jesus being tested with questions, much like the start of this thread is about testing Christian belief, and in particular questions about what one must do to gain entry to Heaven. The Heaven of Jesus itself was a relatively new phenomenon as many Jews to this day do not believe in a Heavenly afterlife as we Christians do. Near the end of that passage he espouses the omnipotent nature of God and that nothing is impossible, not even for wealthy people.

If I may give an example from experience. I once was "wealthy" enough to possess a few Rolexes. At one point I lost my source of "wealth" and had to sell my watch collection to survive a few more months. In fairness it is not giving it away but my actions in acquiring and selling provided incomes to those who manufactured and traded these items. The sale cost me some money but provided enough to survive for some time. If I merely gave them away I would have been reliant on charity but the sale also allowed for me to continue my charitable contributions as well. This also coincided with my move from "lapsed Catholic" borderline agnostic to practising Catholic again.
The realization that my "wealth" and possessions were nothing more than temporal objects freed me to discover Jesus and His good news again.

I am now "wealthy" enough again to afford a couple of Rolexes but I choose not to spend in that manner as there are others now, my family, who need food and shelter more than I "need" a fine timepiece.
Of course if I do ever find myself with one or two Rolexes again I know that if I should ever need cash in a hurry I can get it. If I give them away to someone on the street someone else wealthy will get the benefit not the poor person. So I need to sell them and then choose what happens the cash.

The secret to being a good professional writer is to read many times more than you write and if the Bible is the area of study to read around the "subtle" areas of the Bible so the context is not lost.

I wish you well in your search for the truth.

smurfhousing

oceanclub wrote: »

I've seen references in this group to the sin of homosexuality, despite the fact that Jesus himself never said anything about this. OK, fair enough.

However, one thing that Jesus did explicitly talk about was wealth, when he made the above statement. It's pretty clear cut and unambigious. And yet it's freely ignored by Christians. Indeed, the US Family Research Council has just come out with a list of "sins" that concentrate to a large extent on how tax, even inheritance tax is evil:

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09F17.pdf

Can anyone explain this conundrum to me? Surely commandments made by Jesus himself are considered pretty important?

P.

The rich young man went away sad because, in order to be perfect, he would have to give up his riches. It doesn't mean that he lost his salvation. However, an inordinate attachment to wealth or other things is a problem. Anything which we prefer to God is an idol.