Grew up with this stupid interpretation that it refers to some small gate in Jerusalem that camels had to bend down to use or something.
Jesus literally gives the answer in the next sentence:
”Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” He replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.”“
Luke 18:25-27 NRSV
God can save anyone. And my layman’s interpretation on top of it, no man can save himself.
Well yeah, but if you’re a Christian you believe that it’s literally God telling you that you can’t be rich and go to heaven. God may make an exception, but it would be just as absurd for you to count on being an exception to this rule as it would be for you to count on being the exception to the rule that “none come to the father but through me”. If you’re rich, you’re just as damned as if you were never Christian to begin with.
I think it isn’t really to do with the money itself but with the mindset. If you’re the type to dodge taxes and scam people, and love money above all, which is arguably what it takes to become rich, then you clearly aren’t a Christian transformed by God.
I am a Christian and I think your argument is weak. That Jesus talks of a rich person here is irrelevant, the core of Jesus teaching is that salvation is a gift freely given, but not something we can obtain in our own power.
That Jesus talks of a rich person here is irrelevant
It’s really very relevant:
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The message here isn’t about buying your way into heaven, it’s about earthly attachments. In part it is about sacrificing your own desires, but ultimately it’s about split loyalties. If you want to enter heaven, you cannot be burdened by avarice, by the desire for possessions. And if you truly seek to follow what Jesus is teaching, then you would give up everything to do it.
I agree, but I think making it to sound like Jesus says rich people can’t be saved is a misinterpretation. It seems to me he says it’s hard for rich people to truly follow him and his teaching, and that only God can save people.
The problem is, if after hearing the teaching you are still rich then you haven’t understood the teaching or really accepted the message - because you are still attached to your worldly possessions.
It’s not that “rich people can’t be saved”… it’s that being rich and following Jesus are fundamentally incompatible. You can’t be rich and “truly follow him”, as you put it.
The easiest thought experiment here is asking “But how do you get rich?”
Well, it’s certainly not by putting others first and being fair and equitable in all your dealings. That’s against the “game” (oh sorry, “best practices”) of business.
A ton of capitalist co-opting of Christianity makes all kinds of excuses for why a Godly person could work 1,000,000x harder than everyone else and be “blessed” with the burdens of wealth, but it’s all propaganda.
Inheritance maybe? Okay, the question still becomes: What did you do with your resources?
Being honest with these questions makes the truth rather apparent, in my humble opinion.
Context is important. Literally the next couple verses in both passages say something along the lines of "The disciples asked, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Jesus said, ‘With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’ "
One thing I never understood was how any of it could be taken seriously if I could do literally anything and then go to confession and it’s all ok. Like imagine the absolute most atrocious thing one could do, then admit you did it to a priest, and you’re good? What if you just did that over and over again?
I’m not looking to “slam” Christianity, I’m just curious about that part.
It is something you can see the early Christians debating as well.
This is a take from James 2
“”What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.“
James 2:14-18 NRSV
And this is from Romans written by Paul
”There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.“
Romans 8:1-2 NRSV
”because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.“
Romans 10:9-10 NRSV
And from Ephesians (which might have been written by Paul)
”For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.“
Ephesians 2:8-9 NRSV
I’m just cherry picking a bit here, plus there was of course much more debate on this topic than what we have documented. My personal thought on is it that, while it may seem wildly unfair, what other alternative than “saved by grace” could there really be that doesn’t result in people saving themselves. If Jesus truly paid the price, what else is there to pay?
The concept of “works” without knowing that term exactly was always how I explained myself: in that I may not have any faith, but if any of this is real I should be judged by my actions regardless of what I believe to be true.
I can understand your viewpoint and while there are verses in the bible that are very clear on Jesus being the “way”, I personally think God is doing everything he can to save as many as possible. And if someone is living in accordance with how God wants us to live I genuinely hope that is enough.
I mean, you also have many people from other religions who dedicate their whole life to knowing God and following his teaching. Sure if the teaching is evil, that’s an issue, but many religions follow the same basic principles and I think there is more to it than just whether you specifically call yourself a Christian. Don’t really have any bible verses to support it, just my personal conviction.
If you sincerely make the choice to follow Jesus, you would feel immense empathy and guilt about bringing calamity on your fellow human beings. If you had already done so, you’d be moved to repent and atone with those you afflicted, with whatever life you had left.
That’s the power of Christ’s love.
If you were an evil mustache twirling villain who thinks “I can just say some words and act real sad and I get zero consequences for all the evil stuff I enjoyed doing”, you’re fooling yourself. As if God would be some kind of mall cop and not see the evil heart right through it lol.
You know someone’s heart by their works and their nature. They aren’t saved by good deeds, but good will towards their neighbors is a side effect of being saved.
This is why it’s so heartbreaking seeing how people abuse the name of Christ to get people’s guards down, before dragging both through the mud. Evil’s best footsoldiers are hateful “Christians in name only”.
People always ask about a certain funny-mustached dictator’s final thoughts alone in a bunker. “What if he really meant it? Would Jesus forgive him?”
Yep! But I imagine if we’re honest with ourselves and he was actually leaning that way, he would have put a stop to his atrocities much sooner. A confession only out of the sudden realization of impending consequences is seldom a change of heart.
Fair point, what I meant is that in relation to being saved, it’s irrelevant he is rich because only God can save people. In relation to the hardships you’d face with being a Christian and rich it’s valid.
Grew up with this stupid interpretation that it refers to some small gate in Jerusalem that camels had to bend down to use or something.
Jesus literally gives the answer in the next sentence:
”Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” He replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.”“ Luke 18:25-27 NRSV
God can save anyone. And my layman’s interpretation on top of it, no man can save himself.
Well yeah, but if you’re a Christian you believe that it’s literally God telling you that you can’t be rich and go to heaven. God may make an exception, but it would be just as absurd for you to count on being an exception to this rule as it would be for you to count on being the exception to the rule that “none come to the father but through me”. If you’re rich, you’re just as damned as if you were never Christian to begin with.
I think it isn’t really to do with the money itself but with the mindset. If you’re the type to dodge taxes and scam people, and love money above all, which is arguably what it takes to become rich, then you clearly aren’t a Christian transformed by God.
I agree, it’s what you do with the money. Jesus tells you what to do with the money, and either you do that or you don’t.
I am a Christian and I think your argument is weak. That Jesus talks of a rich person here is irrelevant, the core of Jesus teaching is that salvation is a gift freely given, but not something we can obtain in our own power.
It’s really very relevant:
Matthew 19:20-24
The message here isn’t about buying your way into heaven, it’s about earthly attachments. In part it is about sacrificing your own desires, but ultimately it’s about split loyalties. If you want to enter heaven, you cannot be burdened by avarice, by the desire for possessions. And if you truly seek to follow what Jesus is teaching, then you would give up everything to do it.
I agree, but I think making it to sound like Jesus says rich people can’t be saved is a misinterpretation. It seems to me he says it’s hard for rich people to truly follow him and his teaching, and that only God can save people.
The problem is, if after hearing the teaching you are still rich then you haven’t understood the teaching or really accepted the message - because you are still attached to your worldly possessions.
It’s not that “rich people can’t be saved”… it’s that being rich and following Jesus are fundamentally incompatible. You can’t be rich and “truly follow him”, as you put it.
Precisely.
The easiest thought experiment here is asking “But how do you get rich?”
Well, it’s certainly not by putting others first and being fair and equitable in all your dealings. That’s against the “game” (oh sorry, “best practices”) of business.
A ton of capitalist co-opting of Christianity makes all kinds of excuses for why a Godly person could work 1,000,000x harder than everyone else and be “blessed” with the burdens of wealth, but it’s all propaganda.
Inheritance maybe? Okay, the question still becomes: What did you do with your resources?
Being honest with these questions makes the truth rather apparent, in my humble opinion.
“Hard” as in “impossible”. It’s literally right there in the text. Have you seen a camel fit in the eye of a needle before?
Context is important. Literally the next couple verses in both passages say something along the lines of "The disciples asked, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Jesus said, ‘With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’ "
Which is a meaningless nonstatement.
Why?
Christianity and Christians who have their own custom-built version that gets them off scot free, name a more iconic duo.
Does that mean the gift is always given?
One thing I never understood was how any of it could be taken seriously if I could do literally anything and then go to confession and it’s all ok. Like imagine the absolute most atrocious thing one could do, then admit you did it to a priest, and you’re good? What if you just did that over and over again?
I’m not looking to “slam” Christianity, I’m just curious about that part.
It is something you can see the early Christians debating as well.
This is a take from James 2 “”What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.“ James 2:14-18 NRSV
And this is from Romans written by Paul
”There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.“ Romans 8:1-2 NRSV
”because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.“ Romans 10:9-10 NRSV
And from Ephesians (which might have been written by Paul) ”For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.“ Ephesians 2:8-9 NRSV
I’m just cherry picking a bit here, plus there was of course much more debate on this topic than what we have documented. My personal thought on is it that, while it may seem wildly unfair, what other alternative than “saved by grace” could there really be that doesn’t result in people saving themselves. If Jesus truly paid the price, what else is there to pay?
Thanks for the detailed reply!
The concept of “works” without knowing that term exactly was always how I explained myself: in that I may not have any faith, but if any of this is real I should be judged by my actions regardless of what I believe to be true.
You’re welcome.
I can understand your viewpoint and while there are verses in the bible that are very clear on Jesus being the “way”, I personally think God is doing everything he can to save as many as possible. And if someone is living in accordance with how God wants us to live I genuinely hope that is enough.
I mean, you also have many people from other religions who dedicate their whole life to knowing God and following his teaching. Sure if the teaching is evil, that’s an issue, but many religions follow the same basic principles and I think there is more to it than just whether you specifically call yourself a Christian. Don’t really have any bible verses to support it, just my personal conviction.
Sweet little “get the guilt out of any horrible thing you do” card christians made up, huh?
“I’m gonna do whatever the fuck I want, Jesus already paid for my sins.”
Well, that’s the rub.
If you sincerely make the choice to follow Jesus, you would feel immense empathy and guilt about bringing calamity on your fellow human beings. If you had already done so, you’d be moved to repent and atone with those you afflicted, with whatever life you had left.
That’s the power of Christ’s love.
If you were an evil mustache twirling villain who thinks “I can just say some words and act real sad and I get zero consequences for all the evil stuff I enjoyed doing”, you’re fooling yourself. As if God would be some kind of mall cop and not see the evil heart right through it lol.
You know someone’s heart by their works and their nature. They aren’t saved by good deeds, but good will towards their neighbors is a side effect of being saved.
This is why it’s so heartbreaking seeing how people abuse the name of Christ to get people’s guards down, before dragging both through the mud. Evil’s best footsoldiers are hateful “Christians in name only”.
People always ask about a certain funny-mustached dictator’s final thoughts alone in a bunker. “What if he really meant it? Would Jesus forgive him?”
Yep! But I imagine if we’re honest with ourselves and he was actually leaning that way, he would have put a stop to his atrocities much sooner. A confession only out of the sudden realization of impending consequences is seldom a change of heart.
I hope this helps.
it’s your god, of what he says you get to decide what to ignore and what to value
That’s not my argument at all but it seems you’re not interested in that
I dont think irrelevant they were rich, I think it indicated that you cant buy your way into heaven and you are not chosen by God to be rich.
Fair point, what I meant is that in relation to being saved, it’s irrelevant he is rich because only God can save people. In relation to the hardships you’d face with being a Christian and rich it’s valid.