“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
What does this mean? So many people over the years have tried to put this particular quote in some sort of context.
Some tell us that the “Eye of the needle” referred to a small gate into the city of Jerusalem through which a camel could not pass unless it stooped and first had all its baggage first removed. Aha! Jesus was telling us, like some new age guru, that we need to get rid of our baggage to enter heaven. I get it, that’s cool. Baggage bad.
Rumor has it that after dark, when the main gates were shut, travelers or merchants would have to use this small gate, through which the camel could only enter unencumbered and crawling on its knees! Aha again! Very Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Only the penitent camel shall pass. Get rid of your baggage and repent. That is what Jesus was saying right?
Alternatively, some have proposed that the passage is mistranslating the Greek word kamilos (‘camel’) should really be kamĂȘlos, meaning ‘cable, rope.’ Ah a rope through a needle. Still tough for sure, but much better than a camel no?
Still other have suggested that the needle in question was a 6 inch carpet needle and the rope was made of camel hair. Well now we are getting somewhere. A rope through a six inch needle? I got this yo!
It is truly amazing the mental hoops we jump through in order not to take Jesus at his word. Jesus could not possibly have meant what he was saying, right? As Catholics we rightly point out to our protestant brethren how Jesus meant what he said about eating his flesh. We point out that this teaching was too hard for many and they walked away from Jesus. Jesus didn’t run after them and try to convince them all that he was speaking symbolically. No, he meant what he said. So much so that he turned to his disciples and asked if they would abandon him too, to which Peter responded “”Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
So while many Catholics take Jesus’ word at face value when it comes to the Eucharist, we keep looking for a loophole for the eye of the needle. Truth is, we like our stuff. Sure we have some stuff but other people have more stuff. Jesus must have been referring to them, right?
We don’t want to think that maybe we are like that young man who asked Jesus the question and walked away sad. So we look for loopholes in new-agey metaphors or giant needles. But, as usual, the Apostles make that impossible. They responded just as incredulously to Jesus as we would. “When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
If Jesus were referring to a small gate in Jerusalem or giant needle with small ropes, why would the Apostles have been astonished blurting out “Then who can be saved?” There is only one reason, Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant.
So now what? Do we turn away from Jesus in the same way that that young man did or do we respond as Peter did when faced with another hard teaching, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
As for me, I haven’t made my decision yet so I am holding onto my stuff a bit longer – just in case. You never know when you might come upon a good loophole.
October 12, 2009 at 6:53 am
It seems that you have set up a false dichotomy here. The idea that this is a reference to the gait called the eye of the needle is an old one and quite possibly the valid one. How does that suggest that Jesus did not mean what he said? He did not say that the rich could not enter Heaven, just that it is difficult. Difficult like getting a camel through a short gait, maybe? It can be done, it is just really hard. Is there nothing here for us nobody would mistake us for rich folks?
October 12, 2009 at 7:26 am
You make a good point, Patrick. To me, I felt that the scriptures also were calling that those that are rich in friends will find it hard to find the kingdom of God.
And really, isn't it true? The more you appreciate the pleasures of this life, whatever they are, the harder it is to yearn for the next?
I'd love to hear more thoughts on this from everyone.
October 12, 2009 at 8:08 am
I personally believe that in His teachings and parables, Jesus did not hesitate to use hyperbole (exaggeration) if only to jolt some sense into an apathetic audience. Jesus had a wonderful sense of humor.
Sure, all things are possible with God, but Jesus did not explain how it would be possible for a man to carry timber in one eye while calling out a speck of sawdust in his brother's eye. It's funny! And doubtless an exaggeration, a figure of speech. But you get the idea.
So many places in the New Testament show Jesus' sense of humor. We should take the juxtaposition of images in His stories not literally but the way He meant it to work. He knew that some people are so dense that He had to hammer His messages into their thick skulls. The use of improbable imagery has been proven to stimulate understanding.
My favorite improbable imagery in Jesus parables is in Luke, where Jesus said you could uproot a mulberry tree and hurl it into the ocean if you have faith the size of a mustard seed. While I believe that the smallest amount of faith in Jesus do cause miracles, what amuse me no end in this parable is the image of a flying mulberry tree. (I live near San Francisco Bay and have two mulberry trees in my garden. Imagine what my neighbor would say if they suddenly see my trees flying into the Bay!)
Jesus was the greatest story teller who ever lived.
October 12, 2009 at 8:26 am
Yes, there can only be one reason.
I believe a camel (a real one, you know, with humps on the back) can really pass through the eye of the needle (yes, that small thingy used to stitch clothes). It is just as difficult but just as real as the multiplication of bread, raising from the dead, water into wine, etc., and… saving souls. Because "For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God."
That is, unless the verse actually meant the needle going through the camel. aww.
October 12, 2009 at 9:00 am
Is there a reason there can only be one meaning to what Christ said? It's like good literature- metaphors and similes can have many layers of meaning all of which are valid and true even though distinct from each other.
I think he probably meant it both literally (which is quite difficult) and figuratively (which may be somewhat less difficult but were still quite hard and impractical). Aren't we a both-and religion rather than an either-or?
October 12, 2009 at 9:12 am
Hmm, like he meant that without God's grace it would be impossible for one to achieve the necessary detachment from this world to achieve salvation, and that the more material riches one has, the more enmeshed in the world one will be? Naw, he couldn't have meant that. It makes too much sense.
October 12, 2009 at 9:25 am
P.S.: Here's a slam dunk for us Catholics- was the rich young man able to cooperate with grace when his Lord and Savior pointed the way?
October 12, 2009 at 9:38 am
..was the rich young man able to cooperate with grace when his Lord and Savior pointed the way?
No one knows. But here's a hint. In verse 21 it says there: Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,..
– from an amateur biblical scholar
October 12, 2009 at 9:47 am
It seems he did not cast away all of his possessions and follow Jesus immediately, does it not? He even went away sad, we are told. Perhaps he was able to assent to grace at a later date, but in that moment *we do know* that he was not able to.
October 12, 2009 at 10:05 am
Possibly. He was not able to renounce all his possessions at that specific instant, but it is not the same as saying grace was not already working with him to some degree. It just says it is going to be very hard for him, because he is a wealthy man.
October 12, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I love all the reflections made above; they're all pithy & insightful. Just wanted to share that when a friend, Bp. Broderick Pabillo was made bishop he remarked that his greatest challenge now was to stay poor. We were together at a religious order that we both left. One of his reasons for leaving it was that he felt the order was not practicing poverty. The joke is the religious orders make the vow of powerty while the diocesan clergy live it. (But this is in the 'third world'.)
October 12, 2009 at 1:34 pm
DQM,
I don't think it is a false dichotomy at all. Jesus said that that for rich man to enter heaven would be impossible but for God. Not difficult, as in a camel ducking, but impossible.
This is my point. Many people do not want to take Jesus seriously. He is saying 'impossible' through the use of this metaphor.
That is a hard teaching so many of us look for loopholes, I know I do.
October 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well, if we take Jesus at his word in other parts of the bible, "I will give you the Holy Spirit and he'll lead you to all truth." then this has to be more symbolic/hyperbola.
There are kings and queens, nobility and wealthy merchants, all who have been declared Saints by an infallible Church. The thing is, the loved God more than their wealth (and in fact most gave it all away).
Is it difficult for a materially rich man to enter heaven? Yes, but if that same man knows that he owns nothing and humbles himself before God, then through God's grace it can be possible. This is why I like the camel removing all it's possessions and going through a very small gate on it's knees – it fits with the Saints.
October 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I focused on a completely different part of the reading… I felt that the rich man missed an opportunity to recognized Christ as God. That was his problem.
He admitted to faithfully following all of God's commands, but when Christ (God) asked this one more thing of him, it was too much. I think it may have been because he only thought Jesus was a "good teacher" , if we take the rich man at his own words. Christ even tried to help him with this when he asked him "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." That seemed to resonate more with me because that seems to be how our modern society wants to treat Christ. He was just an awesome social reformer with groovy ideas about love and stuff. Pah. Our deacon even quoted from "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" by Schweitzer…
It is impossible to get into Heaven… unless we have Christ and are obedient to His teachings. 'Nuff said.
October 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm
This is why we are not Protestants; because we (should at least) realize that not everyone who pics up a bible or reads a passage understands it. This is also why we need the 2000+ years of church tradition and exegesis on the subject.
Every priest I have ever heard talk about this states Jesus was NOT saying it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, which is the conclusion one would have to draw were one to take the literal translation you seem to be set on. The gospels (particularly Acts) are full of stories where the apostles depended on the goodness and funds of wealthy benefactors.
Being "rich" is subjective. Every person typing on the keyboard is "rich" to someone living in central Africa, or Vietnam, or Bengladesh etc. It's very relative. The US is by far the most consumeristic society in the world, and thus very easy to fall into the trap of wanting/needing/having things which are really not at all necessary, and thus interfering with our focus on salvation.
October 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Just to be clear, I am not doing scriptural exegesis here and I wouldn't be qualified to discuss proper translations if it were in pig latin and my life depended on it.
The point of my post, which was obviously inartfully written since no one seems to understand what I was talking about, is not about the proper translation. Rather, it is about our natural desire the obvious meaning of things in preference for the way we want to read things.
I don't want give up my stuff because I like my stuff. Therefore I, like many others, look for ways to minimize what Jesus was saying.
Whether you prefer a literal interpretation or a literalist interpretation, I don't care. Either way, Jesus wants us to free ourselves of our love of possessions.
Whichever interpretation you prefer, I am still ignoring it because I like my stuff.
October 13, 2009 at 1:19 am
Here's a thought:
Keep all your stuff, and then let a homeless person move in with you to share all of it.
Problem solved:)
October 13, 2009 at 4:24 am
I do understand the point of your post but at the same time I don't see the problem. I really never thought Jesus was saying that it was literally impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, just that it was really, really, REALLY hard, so hard that he would need divine help to do it.
I just recently heard that gate story for the first time and wondered if it were true or one of biblical versions of an urban myth. It makes sense to me that if there were a little gate called the "eye of the needle" and camels had to have their stuff taken off to get through, then Jesus would use this obvious and familiar metaphor — which to us sounds bizarre. Jesus used a lot of vivid imagery, but he wasn't prone to bizarre imagery.
October 13, 2009 at 4:46 am
so hard that he would need divine help to do it.
That's just the thing. Everyone needs divine help to be saved. No one saves himself. It's a miracle that any one at all is spared from Hell. Jesus here clearly is singling out the rich as a particularly tough kind to get to heaven, no mistake about it.
The gate explanation does seem to me like so many similar trivializations of Jesus' words. Maybe that is indeed what he meant, but I think Patrick's point is that the very fact that it occurred to someone to offer this alternative explanation reveals what bums we are by nature.
October 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Thought from my "faith sharing group":
It's impossible for a camel to go through the needle eye. But "everything is possible with God". The rich man was not "good", so he was unable to accept Jesus' personal invitation to follow Him. However, through faith, God is able to stretch open the eye for so many of us who are rich in worldly possessions and self-pride.
JPII also had an encyclical about this parable (great insight): VERITATIS SPLENDOR.
–gbm3