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

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.

ISAW

uncleoswald wrote: »

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?

There is another explaination. The "Eye of the needle" was a narrow gate in the walls of Jerusalem. It would be difficult for a camel to pass through it. Of course the more material you packed on the camel the more difficult it would to be to get into the city. That story is the same - attachment to the material world hampers spiritual progress.