22. When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.
23. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25. When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26. Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
There are two approaches generally taken to discussing this parable.
- The first is to do as James E. Talmage did and just catalog all the various approaches others have taken with the parable.
- The second is to go right off into the weeds (trying to be polite about it) with explanations about how Christ did not really mean what he was saying.
As a result, you are not likely to get taught the real message of what the “eye of the needle” is about.
So what are people not teaching or telling you about what is really going on? What can you learn from the context?
- The parable starts with a rich young man. Rather than follow Christ, he goes away in sorrow. That part usually gets left out of the story.
- Jesus uses this as a case study to draw the conclusion that “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- You can then see that rather than come to any expansive interpretation, the disciples are greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
- Christ states that with man, no one can be saved.
Two things are going on as sub-texts.
First, the disciples are reflecting the culture norm or belief that the rich are the most blessed of God. If anyone has earned salvation, it is the rich.
Second, they see that what Christ is saying is that even the rich cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
So they ask a question which really means: “if not the rich, who can be saved?”
Notice that Christ does not disagree with them that it is impossible for the rich to be saved.
Instead, he says “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” He agrees that it is impossible for the rich (or anyone else) to be saved.
He then states that with God all things are possible.
That is, God can make the impossible happen.
Which, of course, is what Christ is all about – making the impossible happen through grace.
Questions to ask yourself:
- Do you ever find yourself attributing special spiritual grace to unrelated characteristics?
- Do you think God respects the rich more?
- Do you think God respects the famous more?
- Do you think God respects the beautiful more?
- Do you think God respects the poor more (C. S. Lewis wrote about that heresy)?
- Do you, in your heart of hearts, think that God really is a respecter of persons and families?
Do you ever find yourself thinking that with man it is possible to be saved – we don’t need God, or repentance or grace?
- Is there anyone who does not need to repent?
- Is there anyone who has enough merit that they don’t need God’s grace but can save themselves?
- Is there anyone who is flawless?
How does the lesson of the eye of the needle apply to how you deal with yourself and with others?
Why would anyone try to explain the parable away?
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Great questions. I think God is no respecter of persons, but I also think he loves us all. I love this parable and can’t stand how people explain it away as if they’ve got some sort of bizarre attachment to the prosperity gospel. It’s crystal clear (at least, to me) that the parable is designed to illustrate that having lots of worldly stuff in general and lots of money in particular is a clear and insurmountable barrier to God/salvation. There’s really no other way to slice it. One wonders, then, by extension, what that means for a church as wealthy as ours. Do we need more cattle ranches and shopping malls? What if we designed and built our temples to be more humble and plain buildings? I’ve never bought into the fact that “We’re showing we love and honor god by using the best materials”. That’s a bizarre projection that originates entirely with us and our skewed worldly values. Does anyone really think God is up there saying “I said I wanted Carrara marble, not plain concrete, you idiots!”?
Also, I don’t know if God loves the poor more than any other group, but, given Jesus’s earthly ministry, I can’t think of any way that God would approve of how we do tithing, since a flat tax (which is essentially what tithing is: everyone pays 10 percent) negatively impacts the folks on the lower end of the income scale far more than it does the folks at the higher end. I don’t think Jesus would be a fan of that. My .02. Thanks for a fresh look at one of my favorite passages of scripture.
I’ve always seen this scripture as requiring a person (rich or poor) to divest themselves of all they have (material wealth, but all other forms of wealth and knowledge and pride as well), get down on their bellies and crawl to Christ.
And even then we haven’t earned salvation. But are rather throwing ourselves at the feet of our savior to plead for him to do the impossible and save us somehow.
So the big question, a scarey question because of the honesty it requires, is what wealth do I refuse to let go?
The motivation (like craving, lust, addiction and/or fear) involved in the serious acquisition of vastly more than your needs is a huge distraction from loving relationships including your oneness with God. We are spiritual beings having a mortal experience. Material lust ignores this truth putting mortal constructs (illusions) first at the expense of relationships, discipleship and spiritual experience. It limits our learning to what is written rather than what can be personally experienced in a partnership with God.
The rich man was young, implying his wealth was inherited. By selling all his wealth, he’d be leaving nothing for his children to inherit. He’d be throwing away what his ancestors had worked hard to gain. Just like in the OT, Christ was asking this young man to leave his family and home to come follow him. I think that would make even the best of us pause and think deeply (the scriptures make clear this young man was very righteous). People tend to assume the young man rejected Christ since he walked away sorrowful, but I think that’s unfair. We really don’t know what happened afterwards with that kid.
The scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, say that wealth is a *very* common impediment to righteousness. Jacob 2:17-19 says that wealth isn’t intrinsically evil, but you *must* put God first and care for the poor and needy with those riches. Verse 17 says to be free with your riches, so that others may be rich like you.
What’s my takeaway from the story of the young rich man? God requires us to do things that feel impossible at times, even when you feel like you’ve been doing everything right. Sometimes all you can do is hold on tight and trust things will be okay. And when they don’t turn out okay, trust that God will help you pick up the pieces, because with God even that can be possible.
Who can be saved? No one, without God. God is no respector of persons…He loves us all as His children and knows this mortality sets us all up for the need to turn to Him, starting with Adam and Eve and the impossible laws of necessary opposites.
What frustrates me about religion is the us vs them mentality, when it seems clear to me that everyone is in the same position. We just have different stories.
The poor see the rich are impeded by selfishness. The rich see the poor are impeded by burying their talents as unprofitable servants instead of working them. The believers see the nonbelievers as worldly in a spacious building. The nonbelievers see the believers with beams in their eyes. The depressed need more faith. Those heading towards divorce need to try harder on their marriage. Those with doubts need to just believe. Those that are inactive need to be rescued and attend meetings regardless of how boring they are. Youth need to listen to the wisdom of their elders. Grown ups need to have faith like children.
The thing is, all of that is true, to some degree. Paradox exists because we all lack something. And if we don’t use wisdom, we glob onto one facet of a parable and over-judge and look beyond the mark.
The lesson isn’t about rich people. Are not most of our Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Temple Presidents, General Authorities, Apostles and prophets all well off? Our church is not led by spiritual giants who are homeless.
My dad blessed a lot of people because he had some means to do so, and that was what made him happiest, giving the wealth he was blessed with. The church is so wealthy, we can build buildings and temples. So much good comes when wealth is used for good things.
God looks upon the heart. That’s all. If one rich man has a heart stuck on riches that don’t leave this earth, that will be his test. For others, it will be if they are willing to obey and dip in the river 7 times. For others it will be to stop complaining about others who build rameumptums.
The idea is to use the parable to look inward. That one guy who won’t give up his fortune has his test. Not ALL rich people.
Everyone has their test. There is enough for us all to work on in our lives, no matter our situation.
God is no respector of persons. We are all impossible. But with God, there is hope he can be our salvation. There is no other way, nor name.
The parable is to get us to think. But it does not create a rule about any group or other people. It is for us to reflect on in our lives…not draw judgements on rich people, which would be absurd, since there are as many variations of spirituality among rich as among all other groups. Christ is trying to get us to look inward.
Here is my problem with religion, and why I dismiss this parable at times: Since all need god, all things are impossible without Him, and all things are possible with him…nothing matters except how I develop love in my heart. Nobody needs covenants or ordinances. It doesn’t matter. Because none of us have a chance without God working in our hearts, whether we have covenants or not. And those who turn to God to have a chance, well…he can make things right, he can do the impossible. He can let the ones not baptised into heaven. He will turn some baptised away because they “know him not”. No church rules really matter when everything gets fixed in the next life by God who does the impossible with each of us.
I’ll just work on my heart. I don’t care much about parables or rules that make things us vs them. Others have their situations. I just have faith if I’m a good person, it will work out. In the church or not in the church, it doesn’t matter. I leave the rest up to God to run the universe. Parables only matter if I am asking myself if I am the rich man.
I can’t think of any way that God would approve of how we do tithing, since a flat tax (which is essentially what tithing is: everyone pays 10 percent) negatively impacts the folks on the lower end of the income scale far more than it does the folks at the higher end. I don’t think Jesus would be a fan of that.
Well, Jesus certainly approved of the widow’s contribution of two mites. Or do you think her income exceeded 20 mites, making her less than a full tithepayer?
If you want to talk fast offerings or humanitarian funds, however, I completely agree.
Last Lemming:
The story of the widow’s mite has nothing to do with tithing per se. We don’t know the widow’s yearly income, only that Christ observed the rich putting in huge offerings and the widow offering two mites, which Christ specifically says was “all that she had, even all her living.” He is comparing her favorably to the rich, who put in lots of money, but who (apparently) aren’t willing to sacrifice as much as the widow does. And the widow’s example is notable and praiseworthy precisely because she gives more than is required, whereas tithing is merely a requirement (if one wishes to enter the temple, anyway). Additionally, the story makes the same point that Mary Ann does above about sacrifice generally, etc. So the story is, IMO, more about the difficulty of giving of your worldly goods when you have much. I still maintain that Christ wouldn’t want the poor to be unfairly burdened, which, under a flat rate, they are.
I think the story is about:
Rejecting any connection between wealth (or the lack of it) and virtue and
More importantly, that salvation on our own terms is impossible but that with God all things are possible.
For my take:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/04/07/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle/
Kevin, even then I was pointing out the implicit rejection of neo Calvanism and the prosperity gospel:
“Stephen M (Ethesis) on April 13, 2006 at 9:39 pm
I thought I’d add that part of the “who then can be saved” question is the presupposition that the rich are beloved of God and surely they, of all people, are going to be saved.”
I think the Savior is employing an idiom to show hoe difficult it is for the wealthy to make it to the kingdom of God. He uses idioms in other places as well.” Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”would be another example.
My main thoughts these days is how does the brethren try to convince us they are following God when as an institution, they are all about making money. They live opulent lifestyles on the backs of the rank and file and tell us to pay tithing even if we don’t have money for rent or food.In my view, Christ would be ashamed of what passes for Christianity in our day.
“What if we designed and built our temples to be more humble and plain buildings? I’ve never bought into the fact that “We’re showing we love and honor god by using the best materials”.
Well, I would be sad if people hadn’t hired artists to decorate or architects to design their great cathedrals. Perhaps the artists would’ve been hired for other work, but I just love visiting cathedrals here and abroad.
I don’t find most of the LDS temples as awe-inspiring and certainly our ward buildings are very plain and basic.
Not exactly opulent life styles from what I’ve seen but things may have changed in the last twenty years c
#13 I will change it to VERY NICE lifestyle that is paid for by tithe payers. They have very nice homes paid for by the corporation in gated communities, travel first class with their spouses all over the world, have expensive watches, credit cards, and so on. I know Jesus did not live that way or his apostles. Peter and the gang had to work.
Peter and the gang were required by Christ to give up their day jobs to devote their lives to the ministry. Exactly what Christ told the young rich man to do.
#15 They worked throughout their ministry as far as I can see. Even if that were true- Did Jesus say take the wodows mite and buy your selfa huge home in a gated community with her mone and buy a watch worth thousands. Mother Teresa dedicated her life and never lived this well.
Peter wasn’t running around preaching and then ducking back to Galilee to man his fishing operation. The last chapter of the book of John is typically seen as Christ indicating Peter’s fishing days were over and he was gonna devote his full time work to the ministry. 1 Corinthians 9:14 and a couple other NT verses talk about ministers being supported by churchmembers. Paul opted to refuse some of that support for some reason and do some manual labor, but there’s no reason to believe others did the same. There’s no reason to believe that Christ had a day job during his ministry, as he stated he had no home, and instructed church leaders to go forth not worrying how they would provide for themselves (take no thought for what you will eat, etc.).
The Levites were supported completely by the tithes of the other tribes. There is scriptural precedent for church leaders to live off the donations of other churchmembers. The opulence is a separate issue.
#17. The real point is the opulence. What are your thoughts on that?
Both in Luke 5 and John 21, Christ provided a method for the disciples to support themselves. Both allowed opportunity for a mission service from the income of a 1st career. Present day missionaries and senior missionaries accomplish the same, but not General Authorities. Why is there a line drawn?
#19. I don’t see in those scriptures where provision is made. Would you elaborate a bit more on what you are talking about and the point you are making? Thanks!
#18 – I think culture plays a big role. There seems to be an upper middle class feel to the accommodations I’ve personally seen. I think this reflects the reality and expectations of many white-collar professionals at the upper echelon of leadership. I think leaders grasp what third-world poverty looks like. I’m not sure some people in the bureaucracy grasp what first-world poverty looks like, and what upper-middle-class living arrangements look like to people worried about imminent evictions or living off government assistance.
Basically, opulence is in the eye of the beholder. Is spending $20 for a piece of artwork opulent? What about $50? $100? $500? $2,000? $15,000? $50,000? How do you draw the line without influence from your own personal financial experiences?
#21 Thank you for your response. When I look at the apostles lifestyle with 8,000 dollar watch on one of them and very nice homes in gated communities I am appalled by their behavior. In my ward, most struggle to just pay their bills while paying tithing and then I seebhow these men live on that money. Christ did not do that. In fact if white collar folks were offended at what he taught so be it. He was not interested in numbers to fill the tithing coffers.
–“It hurts me when I see a priest or nun with the latest-model car. You can’t do this. A car is necessary to do a lot of work but, please, choose a more humble one. If you like the fancy one, just think about how many children are dying of hunger in the world.” From the pope. Do we think about this when we see the apostles driving around in nice cars paid for by the widows mite?
I don’t think we can generalize GA’s and their lifestyle. Elder Perry lived in a condo, most who live in the world live in apartments not huge mansions or any such things. We had a 70 here like 10 years ago his shoes could not have been any older and his scriptures were very, very well worn.I know his niece an nephew and she said he was not wealthy at all. In saying that I’m sure Pres. Nelson has had a very nice life but he’s paid for it, they don’t just hand out PH.D.’s in Medicine to people off the street. Like one GA said one time “you give them your life and they give you a car” which you probably turn in when you are emeritus.
My mission president bought his own cars as he didn’t feel like staying on budget so it just came out of his own pocket.
Interesting how Mike assumes they all just dip into tithing, whizzbang is aware of those whose spending does not reflect that.
Opus Dei’s headquarters in Boston is worth a drive by. I’ve never seen such a collection of older used sedans in Boston. They all seem to drive Hondas and Toyotas with over 100k miles on them.
Mary Ann –good points.
I will note I had a friend who traveled a lot for HP.
He almost always flew first class. HP would only pay for coach but when you fly a *lot* you can upgrade constantly–which he didn’t–for basically free.
Whizz bang notes some exceptions to the rule which does not cancel out the rule. Even the example of the mission president is an exception since they get a VERY nice financial package o serve.Would they serve anyway-No question about it.The apsotles get so many financial goodies it is not funny. I could show numerous specific examples but time to move on. They should not live off the backs of the widows mite. They may find themselves looking on the outside of the needle.
Mike — I know the widow of a 70. She does not live in an opulent fashion.
I think some times it is easy enough to see a person who had money before they were called and that spends that money and thus conclude that it all comes from tithing funds. Yet for the people I’ve known, that did not seem to be the case.
Had done this study on “Eye means I” maybe this will help.
Eye of The Needle
The verses dealing with the “eye of the needle” have been looked at for centuries and yet the clarity has been lacking. We can infer as a parable that it is impossible for the rich man to enter by his will. However that is not the same understanding as the “I” understanding we will explore now. Immediately in verse 23 it is evident that the “reign of the heavens” is “reign of God” which is the focus of verse 23 & 24. Therefore this is about the “reign of God” where there is no inflated ego of the “I” of man’s will. Reign of God means God is controlling and not man.
Matthew 19:23 “23 and Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the reign of the heavens;”
Now we read the verse and look at “eye” as it being “I”. The image below will make this clearer. It is not that the camel has to go through the center of the opening of the needle that is called an eye. Rather it is giving us proportional size difference of the “i” of camel compared to the Inflated ego “I” of the rich man. It is easier for the “i” (camel) to be reigned over by God than the enormous inflated ego “I” of the rich man. The eye of the needle which is the “i” of the camel is representation of a simple man that can have God ringing over them. In the preceding verses the rich young ruler wanted to justify his own will and use have “life age-during” (we omitted those verses to keep this simpler).
Matthew 19:24 “24 and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.’”
Praise I AM,
Michael Idarecis
Listen, the era of blue-collar GAs and prophet plowboys is long gone. We as a people expect our leaders to show us the magic formula to both exaltation and the prosperity gospel. We parade around their worldly accomplishments, degrees, prestige, etc. to prove the legitimacy and mainstream nature of our faith. As a general rule, Mission Presidents set high bars for the young missionaries- as models of faith and discipline rolled into success.
I think most of the church would struggle if they found out the extent of GA perks, one of the most important is social capital including networks with world leaders. GA last names go a looooong way in the intermointain West, but also in broader political, business, and academic circles. Your last name and relationship gets you free BYU tuition and admittance, VIP admittance to Ivy League universities, priority positions working for the church (lobbyists, church schools, business endeavors, contractors, church-employed law firms, etc.). Your name sells books and CDS at DB and elsewhere, gets you introduced to Kings and presidents, etc. You and your family sit on boards of directors, etc.
I don’t know how much this wealth is realized, since so many GAs come from wealth and take it for granted, but it is a real problem for GAs and the saints alike who expect this level of success and reputation for the church.
We aren’t hearing the parable at all.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Today, most people know Ken Follett as the author of mammoth works of historical fiction.